Global Action Day on Military Spending

Here in New Zealand, I’ve just been to one of the first events of the Global Day of Action on Military Spending, a panel of speakers organised by Peace Movement Aotearoa.

The Stockholm Independent Peace Research Institute figures for 2011 military expenditure have just been released, there’s a summary available here.

Edwina Hughes from PMA spoke about the trillions of dollars spent globally on arms by all militaries of the world’s nations. She was followed by Anne Else from CPAG, who spoke about the effect a small proportion of the NZ MOD spend would have on the outcomes for alleviating poverty in this country. In NZ, we spend a bit over $NZ 3 billion each year, and as has been reported in the news today, not all of that spending is considered, wise or even fully accountable. Then we heard from Tara D’Sousa, International Programmes Manager, Caritas Aotearoa New Zealand, who spoke about the failure of NZ to keep up with it’s commitment to meet 0.7% of GNI as a target for overseas development assistance, which is a UNDP target.

Don’t worry about the facts – just feel the ideology

Lindsay Mitchell has an op ed in the NZ Herald today. It’s on her usual topic of attacking the DPB.

The biggest problem I have with Lindsay Mitchell is that to back her ideological position she makes sweeping statements without producing any evidence to support them and interprets events that are loosely temporally related as being causally related without producing any evidence of causation.

Just take this quote from her op ed:

When the United States declared war on poverty and expanded welfare in the 1960s, poverty won. When it reformed welfare in the 1990s, welfare rolls dropped dramatically and so did poverty levels.

Well, not according to the University of Michigan’s Gerald R Ford School of Public Policy:

In the late 1950s, the poverty rate for all Americans was 22.4 percent, or 39.5 million individuals. These numbers declined steadily throughout the 1960s, reaching a low of 11.1 percent, or 22.9 million individuals, in 1973. Over the next decade, the poverty rate fluctuated between 11.1 and 12.6 percent, but it began to rise steadily again in 1980. By 1983, the number of poor individuals had risen to 35.3 million individuals, or 15.2 percent.

For the next ten years, the poverty rate remained above 12.8 percent, increasing to 15.1 percent, or 39.3 million individuals, by 1993. The rate declined for the remainder of the decade, to 11.3 percent by 2000. From 2000 to 2004 it rose each year to 12.7 in 2004.

So poverty levels, contrary to Mitchell’s assertion, dropped right through to 1973 and remained reasonably stable through to the early 1980s.

And they started to decline in 1993 – three years before the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act was signed into law by Bill Clinton. Mitchell is wrong again.

And to claim the trifecta of inaccuracy, under the welfare reforms Mitchell lauds poverty levels rose between 2000 to 2004.

Or maybe she’s using a different measure of poverty to the researchers at the University of Michigan. We just don’t know.

So why does the Herald keep printing this nonsense.

Global Poverty Project campaign launches in Aotearoa

I’ve been a little busy lately, for one reason or another, and neither been attending many events, nor blogging about green stuff.

I’ll make amends with a quick description of an event I was invited to by the Wellington Activation Manager for the Global Poverty Project, Sarah Wood, which took place at the Banquet Hall of Parliament last night.

MP’s Jackie Blue (N) and Steve Chadwick (L) spoke, as the hosting MP’s and Chair and VC of the Parliamentary Committee to Effect Change on Women’s Issues, and welcomed the organisers of the Global Poverty Project to Wellington, and also to Aotearoa/New Zealand, as they begin the launch of their campaign here.
In Australia, it’s fronted by Hugh Jackman, no less, and has had endorsements from Bono and other celebrities, but you can look at the website here.

In Wellington, we were treated to a very well-presented launch by Hugh Evans, a young man who first experienced the priviledge of his birthright when he was taken to the Phillipines by World Vision as a 14 year-old schoolboy. He realised then that most of the things he took for granted about his life (home, access to schooling, his parents’ jobs) were essentially an accident of birth – if he had been born at the same time, in another place, his life might have been like that of the teenagers he met, who survived by selling scavenged metals on the Burning Mountain rubbish dump that he visited.

The presentation is travelling around New Zealand, visiting the major cities.
It’s back here in Wellington on Friday 28th August, at Rutherford House, Pipitea Campus of Victoria University of Wellington. Lecture Theatres are on the ground floor, there’ll be signs to guide you to the right one(s).
RSVP to
newzealand@globalpovertyproject.com
so they have some idea how many lecture theatres they’ll need! They requested that for today as a deadline, but if you find this late, Sarah is a very accommodating person and may let you off.

Warmth for everybody

It appears I’m the newest addition to Green Voices. I had meant to write myself a proper introduction, and explain why I joined the Greens back in ’02 and why I remain a member, but that might wait til the next post.

The insulation debate is raging however (at The Standard and elsewhere), and it’s a topic close to my heart. I’ve already written at length about why I care about this policy, and why it is such a good idea to do something about it.

National are planning on scrapping the insulation fund won from Labour by the Greens, and are likely to be successful. There are a number of reasons why, and a number of things that should be done.

Labour promised $1 billion over 15 years for insulation of houses. This was a relatively small annual amount (especially when compared to the many billions spent on new roads). It was introduced at such a late stage that few people have yet been affected, and have much emotional stake in keeping it. Furthermore, it was not widely targeted, meaning that most voters even if they were aware, were going to think of it as ‘something somebody else will get the benefit from’, especially as it was something that would not affect most renters due to uptake for landlords being voluntary. A textbook example of a good idea legislated badly.

The Greens had been trying to convince the Govt to introduce real support for insulation since 1999, and were consistently brushed off. The fund was a hard fought concession during ETS negotiations, and something that the Government had little desire to implement, and it shows in the design of the policy. A wasted opportunity.

The policy won from Labour only affected ‘low income’ NZers, and left much of the rest of the population out in the cold, literally. They saw little or no benefit, and this may have contributed to the perception that the last Labour Government was one that was interested in ‘other people’ and not in their interest. Research has shown that even moderate and high income earners live in cold houses and defer investment in insulation over other spending.

The election demonstrated that the Greens are currently failing in their targeting of a large number of electorates. A universal scheme is needed, and Green insulation policy could be used to create purchase with these communities. If the policy is to be as successful as it needs to be, and a potential election issue, it must be visible to the wider population, especially ‘non-core’ potential Green voters.

So what to do? To some extent these suggestions are already being followed, so it’s really a question of emphasis. Talk about having every home in NZ warm, dry, and insulated. Every one. That people should not have to go overseas to be comfortable. Talk about saving hundreds of dollars from winter power bills. Talk about having healthy children. Talk about having some of the coldest houses in the OECD, and that how people in Norway, Sweden, Germany and Canada live with much colder winters but enjoy warm and dry houses. Lowering emissions is important of course, but people living in cold houses need to have a message that emphasises their own experiences first and foremost. It would be a popular policy. The Greens need to win at least 10% in the next election, and policies like this one will help get those 300,000+ voters.

There are a number of implementation mechanisms, but far as I’ve been able to tell, the most successful practice internationally has been low or zero interest loans for homeowners living in their own homes (Worldchanging has an article well worth reading). These allow people to purchase immediately, enjoy the benefits while they pay it off, and the Government wears only the cost of foregone interest. The loans can also be tied to the property, so that the next owner takes over the loan. This allows the Government to offer it to everybody, as the cost is much lower than full or partial subsidies, and the resulting gain in political capital is large. A scheme that benefits the great majority of the population is much harder to scrap. The amount paid back can even be linked to the amount saved in power/gas bills, allowing it to be marketed as zero cost. The Labour-negotiated policy mandated full subsidies for low income earners, and limited interest rebates for middle income earners. The orientation of the scheme should be changed and limits scrapped or taken much higher.

The same loans should be offered to rental owners, but these should be accompanied with a phased in requirement to insulate, as uptake is likely to be too slow or patchy otherwise. Many will insulate and make houses efficient, but some will see no commercial advantage in doing so and will need encouragement. These might form a vocal minority, but this is a policy worth fighting for. (And backing down only encourages opponents, rather than dampening their resolve)

A higher standard for new housing would also help, but only around 1% of housing annually is new, so this takes a long time to see any real impact and should be considered as separate to this policy. Improving the existing housing stock must be the priority.

I’d also like to see the idea of low/zero interest loans extended to other bright ideas, but that can wait for another post!